Use the scientific method to prove Napoleon existed?

Question

I got into an argument with a creationist and this was the question he brought up to justify his position.

I told him the scientific method supports evolution and not creationism and he attempted to prove faults with the scientific method by asking I use the method to prove any historical figure actually existed.

I told him he was using convoluted logic and that even if I couldn't perfectly answer him, there were actual scientists who could. So I'm asking if anyone here knows the scientific response to the above question. Thanks!!

Answer 1

Easy. We have the observations and actions of Napoleon, we have his own words in his hand. We have tons and tons of paintings, prints and coins and busts to see what he looked like. We can dig up his specific grave and test his DNA if needed.



History is also a science, and it's got c;ear rules, too, but best of all, it is informed by physical sciences like DNA and carbon dating and the rest.

Answer 2

There is no doubt that the scientific method is useful in gaining a great deal of knowledge. But, besides the fact that science is practiced by fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, science is indeed limited itself as to what it can observe and test. As it’s been said, “You can’t measure love with a Geiger counter.” Science cannot test all that falls within the realm of truth. For example, science can’t answer questions about subjective values—things like morals, emotions, aesthetics, and love cannot be measured, even though they are very important for human life.



Also, the scientific method is limited to the present. Unique historical events cannot be observed and tested. We can look for evidence and try to test similar conditions, but not the actual events (you would have to have a time machine for that).



And there are certain things science cannot prove simply because it relies on them as presuppositions. As it has been said, “Try to prove logic to be true without using logic.” The same could be said about math.



The scientific method is limited to that which is measurable and repeatable.



===========



Some people claim: “Evolution is just as substantiated as the theory of gravity,” and they like to play on that word “theory.” But, everyone has observed an object falling at 9.8 meters per second squared. On the other hand, no one has observed life come from non-life (chemical evolution), or functional complex design come from non-intelligence, or the supposed common descent of all life. They are failing to differentiate between operational science (such as gravity) and historical science (interpreting evidence from the past). And, by the way, gravity as a scientific concept (an attractive force between two masses) was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton who just so happened to be a creationist. We have no problem with observable repeatable science. Our problem is with the Darwinian story-telling about the past.

Answer 3

The scientific method is meant to prove natural phenomenon. It's not used to prove historical figures. The creationist clearly doesn't understand what science is (like all creationists).

Answer 4

The scientific method is meant to go from observation to experiment that provide a result that support the hypothesis. If you want to prove that Napoleon existed, one would have to show that he exists in the here and now. Since it is doubtful Napoleon would come over and prove he still is, given that he has been dead for nearly 200 years, the scientific method is not an applicable approach.



On the other hand, evolution is a process that is on going, and could be scientifically tested. In fact, it HAS been scientifically tested, with experiments that show the progressive genetic change in a population.



If you are dealing with such morons, I suggest you simply avoid them. It may be a good test of evolution to let religious idiots drift to sub-human level of intellect over time.

Answer 5

You can't. Below is the definition of "scientific method".



A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.



Notice "and experiment". You can't conduct an experiment to prove Napoleon existed. The best one can do is provide historical documentation.



The YEC was probably trying to show you that the scientific method also doesn't work on pseudosciences such as evolutionism. How does one do an experiment that proves that a rat will eventually change into a bat (or whatever) over a million years, since million-year experiments are impossible to conduct. Just because finch beak sizes may change over a few years, that does not prove that a bacterium will change into a boy over a billion years anymore than if someone shows you they can run a mile in ten minutes without stopping, that proves they can also run 1000 miles in 10,000 minutes without stopping. You'd actually have to perform the experiment of having a man attempt to run 1000 miles in 10,000 minutes without stopping to prove such to be true.



When it comes to our origins (or even Napoleon's), the best one can do is provide historical documentation. For YECs, they believe the Bible does just that.

Answer 6

Napoleon's existence is accepted via historical records ...

and has no more to do with "creation" than a sausage.



(What a weird question)

Answer 7

You don't need the scientific method to prove historical figures existed. History provides all the evidence anyone needs. The fact is that there are vast numbers of contemporary references to Napoleon in newspapers, magazines, and books, and none, zero, for Jesus Christ. Your willfully-ignorant friend is in denial of reality if he doesn't recognize this. More to the point, we can produce Napoleon's body. But he's being dishonest to ask a non-scientist to apply the scientific method to anything, and he knows it's as asinine as you asking him to read you passages from a Greek language Bible.

.

.

Answer 8

Well if there was a lock of hair or some form of Napoleon's DNA then that could be proof. However one does not need a scientific method to prove history. One needs credible documentation from the time the event happened and evidence. Story telling is not credible evidence. When all there is, is a biased account it is not evidence. All religions have stories to tell. They all have ties to the soul. Souls however are no more provable than gods. Tell your friend to apply the same rationalization he wants you to apply to his god to any other god. He can no more disprove other gods. He simply accepts his god is the only one. So do all the others and only 1/3 of the worlds population believe in his god. Furthermore his god's own people don't accept him as a god or a prophet. There are plenty of recorded records, artifacts and such of Ra the sun god. One can even see Ra. The same applies to Osiris, Isis and Horus. There is credible historical evidence showing they existed. Not just religious story telling that appeared after their existence. It was well documented in their time when they were thought to be gods. As one would expect not generation/s after the claim.

Answer 9

History is not science. We have plenty of historic evidence that napolean existed. You can never be 100% sure of such things. I would argue that you can't prove he existed 100% but you never made that claim anyway.

Answer 10

A person can better distinguish truth from fiction by reciting daily and with care the angelic psalter of the Virgin Mary.

Answer 11

YES! As of 2007 every single item that the Atheists had used/claimed as their Proofs were done being scientifically studied and ALL were discovered by Science they are FAKES! Most of what the Atheists had claimed to be millions of years old, were discovered by science to be new BONES! BONES so new most still have dried blood still in them! Of what fossils they did have, not one tested to be more then 6,000 years old! Same as the Bible states!

Take the Atheists "Ape to caveman". The Apes did have their own fossils, yet not one tested to be older than 6,000 years old! All of the other animals, to their caveman, were discovered to have been made-up with lots of new BONES and some fossils from lots of already known of animals! Not one BONE or fossil could have come from their/atheists fake animals!

The reason they made-up these fakes is because in 1933 the Atheists had challenged Believers of GOD to court and were accepted! ... Ending at he Supreme Court the Atheists had LOST because they had NOT even one item to prove it. They had believed If they spoke the loudest they would not need any proofs! Believers of GOD WON with tons of Proofs confirming the Bible even back then!

Atheists are back as the same now with Zero Proofs! Ask them to explain how any of their beliefs could have developed into the next part? None of them can!

There are tons of records confirming Napoleon as real! Including the records of all Killed then!

Even communist China has found proofs of "Adam & Eve" also of "Noah's Ark"! Christian churches are now in China!

Answer 12

SIMPLE! Overwhelming verifiable evidence of people who lived at the time, paintings and recorded history! Backed up by body samples, chemical analysis of the fact he died from arsenic poisoning and the evidence it was caused because the wallpaper contained arsenic in its dyes!



Now try the reality about claims for Jesus!



The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for Jesus ever really existing will become world famous and mega rich!



Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.



The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!



There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!



There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?



Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!



At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!



Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?



Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!



Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!



Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD



Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.



Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!



Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Answer 13

First of all he is assuming that 'his' choice in the gods is the only one created and offered by man. Secondly one can not use the tangible to prove the intangible. Napoleon actually existed where none of the gods which have not already been resigned to myth, lore and legend or simply forgotten have.

Answer 14

For him to have posed the question means he fundamentally misunderstands quite a few things.

1: He is confusing "scientific" evidence with "historical" evidence.

2: He is confusing the historical existence of an individual with the existence of natural processes described by scientific theories.

3: He thinks that not knowing everything with arbitrary certainty is equal to not knowing anything with any certainty.

4: He thinks that personal certainty is equal to objective certainty.



It's not entirely unexpected that he would confuse them, as creationists are faced with challenges on all those points - frequently from the same people.



To answer your question - the existence of Napoleon is not a scientific question, but a historical one. Which means that the scientific method can say very little about it. As far as the field of history is concerned, however, there is virtually absolute certainty that he existed. Because of the wealth of contemporary historical evidence about him.

Answer 15

Thousands upon thousands of contemporary documents, written by **independent, contemporary** authors, including those from enemy countries, courts and prisons.

Paintings from life.

Verified relics.